Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ridiculous !!!
Comments
-
Will just mean even more money for agents and players. The game is fucked at the highest level and English football is probably the worst. From a selfish perspective I’d love to see it all come crashing down.10
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5659282/2024/07/25/premier-league-games-united-states-america/Rothko said:
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.0 -
Rothko said:
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
Sorry, only read the headline and didn't think in a million years that The Guardian would sensationalise a headline.0 -
No he isn’tPopIcon said:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5659282/2024/07/25/premier-league-games-united-states-america/Rothko said:
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.0 -
Another reason it all went wrong,support ya local clubs…😬🫣👍Chizz said:
It's a global sport now though isn't it? The Premier League has two types of club: those with lots of fans worldwide and one where they can usually just about scrape enough fans to fill their own stadium. Man United and Crystal Palace, if you like.Covered End said:
It reads as if you are anticipating clubs paying for 20,000 fans to go on an all expenses paid short break to the US in order that they can watch a “home” match.Chizz said:There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.
🤪3 -
It's in the press and they never spin quotes for clicks. 🎯Rothko said:
No he isn’tPopIcon said:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5659282/2024/07/25/premier-league-games-united-states-america/Rothko said:
The interview didn’t give backing, it did say it was inevitable, which are two massively different thingsGribbo said:
"London Mayor gives backing to long standing idea"Stu_of_Kunming said:
Where has he ever supported the idea? I’d be very disappointed if he has, for the exact reasons you state, got a link or anything?Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.
1 -
The surest way of "enabling more fans to get to see their team live" would be to stop selling season tickets and institute system where new 'fans' or those who've not been for ages, get first dibs on tickets. Quite rightly clubs don't do this because it is (for a number of reasons) a totally shit idea. Not everything that enables more fans to see their team live is a good idea. Prostituting the game's heritage to overseas money most certainly isn't.Chizz said:
It's a global sport now though isn't it? The Premier League has two types of club: those with lots of fans worldwide and one where they can usually just about scrape enough fans to fill their own stadium. Man United and Crystal Palace, if you like.Covered End said:
It reads as if you are anticipating clubs paying for 20,000 fans to go on an all expenses paid short break to the US in order that they can watch a “home” match.Chizz said:There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.3 -
Having games abroad would only be financially beneficial by TV revenue, not by fans attending2
